SAN JOSE, CA—After a long day of questioning by a judge and lawyers from each side, a jury of six women and two men has been selected to hear a damages case about how much Samsung should pay Apple for its patents.

The jury was asked a variety of questions about factors that could be unduly influential. For example, they were asked if they or their relatives or friends worked for Apple, Samsung, Google, Seagate, or Nokia. They were asked if they've been involved in lawsuits before, as a plaintiff or defendant; they were asked what kinds of phones and other devices they have.

The jury comes from an array of backgrounds. The group includes a social worker, an Army combat medic turned ER nurse, a retired English teacher who was born in the UK, a pharmacist, and a Stanford medical researcher.

Samsung asked to dismiss three jurors for cause, and US District Judge Lucy Koh, who is overseeing the proceedings, rejected those requests. One of those jurors, the social worker, had a cousin who worked for Samsung and left under what he said were negative circumstances. The juror said that wouldn't bias him. Samsung tried to have him bumped anyhow

At one point, Samsung's lawyer asked if anyone in the jury pool felt they had been negatively affected by out-sourcing. The social worker said that he "grew up union" and had a "huge problem" with outsourcing. "I grew up believing in American workmanship and keeping jobs here," he said.

Others also expressed concerns in reaction to the outsourcing question, but they didn't remain on the jury.

Earlier in the day, one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place," he said.

At another point, a panel of 11 jurors who were together in a waiting area were dismissed because there was some discussion that the judge considered related to the case. At least one juror in that group said there had been a general discussion about the case; other jurors said they had heard about it on the radio on the way to court this morning.

Opening statements are scheduled to begin tomorrow. The only issue in the case is how much money Samsung should pay for a set of patents that were already found to be infringed. Judge Koh found the 2012 jury didn't calculate damages properly, and she slashed about $450 million from the verdict, which originally stood at $1.05 billion.

Last summer's verdict would have been an all-time record had it held up on appeal. This jury could return the stakes in the case to those record-setting levels, or significantly lessen them.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

- Lawyer's fees will exceed monetary damages 3 fold- 60% of the patent would have expired- a little less than 50% of the iPhone's components will be made by Samsung- Microsoft will offer 1 free Lumia with every copy of Halo- Nokia will become a tires and paper company, but will license its name to a Chinese phone manufacturer

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

I think the ideal juror is only a blank slate, and that the lawyers are supposed to provide all the education.

The primary problem with juries being blank slate though, they are being asked to make a multi-million dollar decision with absolutely on a topic that they only just been introduced. I agree that the lawyers should be instrumental to presenting all facts but patent system, let alone software patent system, takes years to understand correctly. This would be especially confusing to non-technical people when you have two sides highly trained in the art of persuasion presenting two different accounts.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed?

Makes perfect sense to me why ideologues (of any stripe) on the issues under litigation are excluded. The point being to remove as much prejudice and bias from the jury as possible, as opposed to stacking it with strong opponents and almost guaranteeing a jury that can't come to a consensus.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

Because this case is only about the amount of damages to award, not whether the patents were valid, or were infringed. Both of those questions were decided in the previous case and the court doesn't want any jurors trying to second-guess those already-decided points.

I think the ideal juror is only a blank slate, and that the lawyers are supposed to provide all the education.

The primary problem with juries being blank slate though, they are being asked to make a multi-million dollar decision with absolutely on a topic that they only just been introduced. I agree that the lawyers should be instrumental to presenting all facts but patent system, let alone software patent system, takes years to understand correctly. This would be especially confusing to non-technical people when you have two sides highly trained in the art of persuasion presenting two different accounts.

I wasn't speaking from my opinion; that's just my understanding that any degree of expertise is antithetical to the theory of trial by jury. Many cases are complicated and the system is shaped by life or death decisions, not only by economic penalties. In theory a law must be simple enough for common folk to understand or it's unjust. That patent law is inscrutable even to insiders is yet more evidence that it is nonsense.

Either Apple or Samsung must have opted for a jury; a civil jury is never mandatory or imposed by a judge in the US. My guess is that Apple is still the plaintiff here despite Samsung requesting the appeal, and they requested a jury for the benefit of more patriotic bias than a judge alone.

Whoever decided to use a jury is shamelessly playing the chances. That much I'd bet on.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

If he was dismissed by apple, then it makes perfect sense.

I was actually wondering who dismissed him. Was it Apple, Samsung, or the judge?

Also, why was Samsung's attempted removal of the social worker blocked by the judge?

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

He's biased, so he doesn't belong on the jury.

Personally I would like to see patents abolished altogether. Which is why I should never be allowed to serve as jury on a patent lawsuit. It needs to be people who are unbiased.

My personal opinion ; on matters of knowledge, like patent trials, use of a jury is not adapted.

The jury should be ignorant by law (if he is not, he cannot have avoided to hear from the case beforehand), and then the risk is that the trial is guided by whoever is around (lawyers and judges). Ignorant does not mean stupid. But, as far as I know, there is nothing in the jury selection to get people with a quick understanding. Therefore, the statistics being as they are ...

So basically, a jury trial in a patent case mean either a decision "from the heart", which does not seem to me a good idea in patent matters, or a decision completely guided by lawyers and justice around, and in that case the best is that they do the job directly.

I am curious to know how many countries are using jurys in patent trial in addition to the US.

One of those jurors, the social worker, had a cousin who worked for Samsung and left under what he said were negative circumstances. The juror said that wouldn't bias him. Samsung tried to have him bumped anyhow

In the inevitable discussions that come up afterwards on the Internet forums, my bet is that this will be the first reason used by the those arguing that Samsung were unfairly treated.

What the Potatoswatter said is the definition of hitting the nail on the head.

If those patents are not clear or concise enough to be understood without causing confusion, then they should not stand. If a jury cannot understand why apple feel they were wronged by samsung via infringed patents, then why should samsung be held accountable for infringing something so vague, wide-reaching, or something that apple weren't the first to do in the first place?

The foremans clear lack of understanding of what prior art is and how it works in part 1 of this melodrama is enough to convince me that the patents shouldn't exist in the first place.

I am also one who believes that it is likely to be Apple who requested a jury, not only because I think they have the ol' red, white and blue advantage there, but because it requires everyone to agree, which I think also benefits them when it comes to the ruling for the same reason as last time, which is that it's going to drag on and people want to get out of there, so the most stubborn person will be more likely to sway things.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

When you're in a jury pool and you actually want to be there, you don't state strong opinions on anything. If you dont want to be there, you most certainly do. I'll take a wild guess as to which camp this guy falls into.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

If he was dismissed by apple, then it makes perfect sense.

A juror who believes that the patents in question should not have been granted is likely to argue vehemently for reducing the damages to as close to zero as possible. So as ironic as it sounds, Samsung would probably also argue for his dismissal, on the grounds that they don't want either a mistrial or a hung jury, based upon a single overtly biased juror.

When you're in a jury pool and you actually want to be there, you don't state strong opinions on anything. If you dont want to be there, you most certainly do. I'll take a wild guess as to which camp this guy falls into.

Perhaps that would be true for someone who is interested enough in our judicial system (or even in a single court case, for that matter) to intentionally familiarize themselves with the inner workings of jury pools in anticipation of one day being called. I don't think that level of interest can be assumed of everyone.

When you're in a jury pool and you actually want to be there, you don't state strong opinions on anything. If you dont want to be there, you most certainly do. I'll take a wild guess as to which camp this guy falls into.

Perhaps that would be true for someone who is interested enough in our judicial system (or even in a single court case, for that matter) to intentionally familiarize themselves with the inner workings of jury pools in anticipation of one day being called. I don't think that level of interest can be assumed of everyone.

No, but someone who happens to be part of the initial selection who decides they really want to make the final selection might.

Apple requested a bench trial (trial in front of the judge, not a jury). Samsung is the one who requested a jury in this case.

I wonder if Samsung will regret that choice.....

Considering how biased judge Koh seemed against Samsung early on in the case, I think Samsung would have better luck in front of a jury.

By biased, I do not mean making decisions I don't like. I mean making decisions that seem fundamentally unfair. Not treating the parties equally under similar conditions, etc. Groklaw covered the Apple vs Samsung I trial and I remember forming this view while reading its coverage.

Apple requested a bench trial (trial in front of the judge, not a jury). Samsung is the one who requested a jury in this case.

I wonder if Samsung will regret that choice.....

Considering how biased judge Koh seemed against Samsung early on in the case, I think Samsung would have better luck in front of a jury.

By biased, I do not mean making decisions I don't like. I mean making decisions that seem fundamentally unfair. Not treating the parties equally under similar conditions, etc. Groklaw covered the Apple vs Samsung I trial and I remember forming this view while reading its coverage.

When you're in a jury pool and you actually want to be there, you don't state strong opinions on anything. If you dont want to be there, you most certainly do. I'll take a wild guess as to which camp this guy falls into.

Perhaps that would be true for someone who is interested enough in our judicial system (or even in a single court case, for that matter) to intentionally familiarize themselves with the inner workings of jury pools in anticipation of one day being called. I don't think that level of interest can be assumed of everyone.

ANYTHING. If they ask you something directly and you have or feign to have made up your mind about that thing already, there is a very good chance you will be dismissed. Asking you irrelevant questions is a waste of the court's time. Any question they ask you about your views is an offer to show that you are either impartial or biased. The details of the case do not matter.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

If you think this case is about software and it's patents then you should be dismissed as well. /s

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

I think the ideal juror is only a blank slate, and that the lawyers are supposed to provide all the education.

Isn't a Jury supposed to be made of your peers? I find that in a case relating to patents, the peers should be people that actually know what they are talking about. Not just randoms that get their mind filled with whatever nonsense the lawyer decides to speak.

I would agree with you that a jury of your peers should include someone intelligent enough to understand what is going on, however the counter to this is that if you know what is going on, then you have a pre-formed opinion on it, and therefore you may not go with what the law is, but what you think the law should be.

The guy who said he thought software patents were ridiculous, he got thrown out because of that opinion. The idea is that the law should be simple enough that it can be followed. If it can't be explained properly to a bunch of people who have never encountered it before, then it shouldn't stand as a law.

For example, let's say Joe Bloggs in his toolshed decides that he can improve upon the original design of one of his tools by creating, I don't know. let's say he creates a new way of safely mounting them on his person. His friends see this and they offer to buy one off of him, he starts a small business up creating these tool solutions for friends and family and it grows. Then up comes a big tool firm who already make one of these things and they have a patent which says "A method of storing tools safely about your person".

Someone has to explain to Joe Bloggs why he has infringed that patent and why something so vague should stop him from practicing his business.

I am not saying that Samsung didn't know what they were doing, and I'm not saying they didnt take some elements of the iPhones design and incorporate it into their own. Did they take some ideas from Apple when designing their galaxy range? Of course they did. I'm sure they looked at all of the phone manufacturers to see what was working with people and what wasn't.

My real question is simply why these patents exist in the first place, and how someone can drum up a billion dollar judgement based on a diagram that could resemble from the front, several phones of the era, and things such as a grid of icons.

Just look at some of the things the microsoft-apple monster is trying to sue google for.. such as "the ability to match search terms to advertising" Someone in the thread for that article on ars pointed out, the yellow pages has been doing that for decades. Why should that be patentable because it is now electronic? It's like me patenting a device that turns carbon dioxide into oxygen and then suing everyone who owns a ****ing plant.

one software engineer was dismissed for cause after he expressed concerns that too many vague patents were granted. "Some of the patents are too vague, and I don't think they should [happen] in the first place"

Where was this guy on the first jury?

And why in the name of god was he dismissed? I could see not stacking the jury, but that seems a supremely important viewpoint.

It's a bit ironic that they are dismissing the only person who likely had first hand experience AND education with software patents.

If you think this case is about software and it's patents then you should be dismissed as well. /s

Considering this trial is about damage caused by the said patents on software, knowledge on patent system is probably a good thing to have.

However, as people have previously said, that's not how any legal proceedings involving patents works at the moment.

Personally, I think the ideal jury for this kind of case is people who professionally have worked with software patent system but don't really care one way or the other who wins what.

The guy who said he thought software patents were ridiculous, he got thrown out because of that opinion. The idea is that the law should be simple enough that it can be followed. If it can't be explained properly to a bunch of people who have never encountered it before, then it shouldn't stand as a law.

No, he stated that he thought some of the patents in question are too vague; not that the software patent is ridiculous.

It's right that he should be dismissed because his statement meant that he already have preconceived notion of the subject at hand (and thereby try to influence other jurors to lower the damage on patents he thinks should not have been granted). However, equally the jury selection is now bunch of people who (probably) have no idea what software patents are about, what kind of effect it has and what appropriate damage even is.

Even to software engineers have hard time grasping the concept until they have to directly work with it.

Each side's legal team is given a chance to convince the judge to dismiss someone, but it's the judges decision in the end.

But I think each side has a right to dismiss one (posibly more) jurors without any cause whatsoever. So the lawyers use their gut instinct, or try to eliminate the most intelligent juror, or some such strategy.

Dr. Phil made his fortune as a consulting psychologist for lawyers doing exactly this. Profiling jurors and helping them choose/eliminate the ones that would benefit their case.

I was called for jury duty recently and out of about 175 people, I and four others were the ones not chosen. A full day sitting around waiting for that. I don't know about the others, but I suspect it was because I have advanced degrees. The very same thing happened to me in a different city about six years ago. Lawyers like to have less-intelligent jurors.

Historically it's understood that "peers" is in reference to peerage. And since U.S. constitution bans noble titles, the only place that's really applicable is in military court martial.(Enlisted/NCO can not sit as jury for officers.) Heck, even UK abolished peers' right to be tried by House of Lords.

And since the jury pool is usually linked to voter registration, it's very unlikely that a literacy test or other similar requirements would not bring up historical baggage.

I would agree with you that a jury of your peers should include someone intelligent enough to understand what is going on, however the counter to this is that if you know what is going on, then you have a pre-formed opinion on it, and therefore you may not go with what the law is, but what you think the law should be....

Ironically, this is exactly how most case law is created. There is a law out there that is relatively vague, and someone takes someone else to court over it. Whatever the jury winds up saying tends to become how the law can be used. So we NEED people to be getting into juries that have the right frame of mind.

Historically it's understood that "peers" is in reference to peerage. And since U.S. constitution bans noble titles, the only place that's really applicable is in military court martial.(Enlisted/NCO can not sit as jury for officers.) Heck, even UK abolished peers' right to be tried by House of Lords.

And since the jury pool is usually linked to voter registration, it's very unlikely that a literacy test or other similar requirements would not bring up historical baggage.